Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Johanson v. Phelps

District Court, D. Vermont

Decided August 16, 1926PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The foundation stone of argument for relators is that they are not immigrants. This must be emphasized, both to do justice to the legal propositions advanced by relators’ counsel, and to dissipate a certain illogicality arising from the de*681partmental decision in Ee Leskova. That young woman, like all the rest, stoutly denies that she wishes to remain permanently in the United States; she is a tourist or visitor whose one purpose is to visit her mother, yet she has been excluded (inter alia) because she is likely to become a public charge. Such ground of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chryssikos v. Commissioner of ImmigrationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
  2. Flora v. RustadCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
  3. Takeyo Koyama v. BurnettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. London v. PhelpsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
  2. United States v. RodriguezDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1960
  3. United States v. VargasDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1974
  4. United States ex rel. Porter v. YaleDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1926
  5. United States ex rel. Sogolow v. KarnuthDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1928

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API